Toward a new right

From time to time I am reminded of the complete and utter inadequacy of the terms «left» and «right» as they pertain to the realm of political beliefs. Even the Libertarian Party’s two-axis Nolan Chart is only a small step in the right direction. This kind categorization oversimplifies opinion about the role of government in a dangerous way that prevents both liberty and progress.

Recently I had coffee with Jason McClain and had the opportunity to engage in a brief conversation about politics with a lovely young woman who described herself as most closely aligned with the values of the Tea Party. She said that she enjoys political argument, and wanting to encourage continued conversation I noted that Jason is a radical libertarian and that I am a socialist. No matter what you believe, you can be sure that you can find argument with one of us. But Jason corrected me: «and,» he said, «you’re a registered republican.»

A socialist republican?

Almost everyone who learns that I am a registered Republican is surprised. I can’t blame them too much, as I have more than my share of disagreement with the mainstream of the Grand Old Party. Furthermore I live in San Francisco, where the word «Republican» is often equated with «Fascist». I think a bit of cognitive dissonance sets in when a person here realizes they’ve been sitting across a table from one of the Soulless Enemy. «He’s such a nice guy,» I flatter myself by imagining they think, «how could he be one of them?»

But in this conversation, I believe the disconnection came from describing myself as a socialist and a republican in successive breaths. One is a leftist and the other a right-winger. They are mutually exclusive, right?

In a word, no. The model of conservative versus liberal boils down to people who want less of what government does versus people who want more of what government does. The Nolan chart splits that axis apart into wanting more or less of what government does in the economic versus personal liberties sectors. As I said, a step in the right direction, but still only begins to address the fact that as citizens we have a responsibility not just to say «more» or «less» but to have opinions about how, why, when, and where government takes a role.

Reducing the national colloquy to «more» versus «less» government practically guarantees that we will have terrible government. There are, I believe, some things that government should do and do more of, as well as things that government should do less of, or preferably none of. Furthermore, it assumes that the role of government is the same at every level. That may be true outside the United States (though I doubt it) but it should absolutely not be true when referring to the politics in the United States.

The role of the Federal Government

Almost every conservative can quote the Tenth Amendment of the United States’ Constitution and use it to rebuff suggestions that the Federal Government take some action that they are opposed to, but how often does one hear that argument followed by an enthusiastic endorsement of said action by one or more of the states? Almost never, which causes me to question whether the issue in conservatives’ minds is really limitation of the Federal Government or if the Tenth Amendment is just a convenient tool in the fight to limit all government.

That’s not how it ought to be.  

The discourse about public policy at the local, state and federal levels ought to be fundamentally different. The idea that these levels of government should behave in the same manner or do the same things is antithetical to the very existence of varied levels of government. I don’t doubt that some people would want less government or more government across the board, but it seems wrong that this across the board thinking would be the rule rather than the occasional exception.

It has been previously noted here on Monochromatic Outlook that the first republican president summed up the role of government by saying it should «do for the people what needs to be done but which they can not by individual effort do at all or do so well for themselves.» In a democracy, the role of government is whatever the people damn well say it should be, but Lincoln’s quote seems to me to be a good guide.

So the first question should be, «is this something that should be done?» and the second question, «who can most effectively make it happen?» If the answer to the second question is government, the next question ought to be, «at what level?» Many very important duties are rightly relegated to the states. Ought there be a federal law against murder? (Well, yes, but only in those special cases where federal jurisdiction applies.) The question of whether there ought to be a law against murder is totally separate from the question of whether such a law ought be federal, or whether each state should write their own.

This separation of powers, different from the separation of the branches of government, is a fundamental part of our Constitution. Without it, what is the point of having states?

If conservatives’ argument against single-payer health care is that it is unconstitutional, why oppose it at the state level? For that matter, where are the liberals who lobby their own states to create single-payer health care programs?

This is part of why I call myself a republican and why I am registered as such, and it has only to do with the stated rhetoric—republican policies aren’t any better than democrat policies in this matter—I believe in the United States as constructed in our Constitution. It is a strong federal body with limited powers to limit the powers of the states, and with certain tasks assigned to it. It’s an oversimplification to say that I support states’ rights, because it isn’t an either/or question: the US Constitution and the Federal Courts override the courts of the states, and that is as it should be. I support states’ power and role in government. When I think something shouldn’t be done by government at all I say so, and when I say that something is not the job of the federal government, I mean the states should take on more responsibility.

Leave no billionaire behind (no, really!)

There is yet another axis to my understanding of governments’ proper roles which is never addressed in the general discourse, and that is fairness. I support government expenditures (which makes me not a conservative) as long as it is spent in a way that benefits all citizens in the jurisdiction in question, which makes me not a liberal. I don’t like programs that target the poor with benefits paid for by the rich, and to which the rich have no access.

Examples of things that government does that benefits everyone? Roads, schools, parks, libraries, public transportation, hospitals, police and fire departments, courts, adult vocational training. This is why I support public health care, so long as it is available to all citizens, and why I dislike income-bracketed health care programs. Universal health care provided at the state and not federal level should be available to the rich as well as the poor.

For one thing, such programs will never receive adequate funding so long as the wealthy are excluded from the benefits. Money is power both in ways that are legitimate and in ways that are corrupt, so a thousand poor people complaining about long lines at the doctor will have less sway than a half-dozen rich people with the same complaints.

I don’t have any problem with the rich and middle class paying for the health care (and other services) of the poor. I just wish that the people who pay taxes for said services could have access to them as well. Multimillionaires can send their kids to public school and check books out of the public library—I know several who do both. If the government is going to provide services, we should eliminate the bureaucracy associated with making sure that only «deserving» people get them. That equates need with entitlement, and encourages helplessness, the result of which is people doing their best to look helpless in order to get rewards rather than earning rewards by helping others. That may be the exception rather than the rule, but it is a growing sector of our society.
Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is morally bankrupt. But stealing from everyone (OK, mostly the rich) and giving to everyone? I don’t think so, at least not in a representative democracy where the people have tools for holding the decisionmakers accountable.
This is why conservatives hate my politics: I’m in favor of schools, parks, roads, libraries, museums, fire and emergency services, police, and health care. I think we should have more of these things, and I think that they should be better-funded, more effective, and accessible to everyone. This makes me a socialist.

And this is why liberals hate my politics: I don’t believe that the poor should be looked down on as pitiable wretches that need society’s charity. I think that they are citizens that should have equal access to the infrastructure that society (by way of government) supplies to all people. I care about fairness and dislike special treatment that promotes class envy. This makes me a Republican, or at least it makes me what Republicans should be.

Remind me again… which party is the party of business?

How absurd is it to have laws that put the responsibility for my health insurance on an employer? This is a ridiculous burden on business and an especially big burden on the smaller, entrepreneurial employers which are this country’s only hope of surviving another decade.

Second: what’s this stuff about medical care for the old and poor paid for by the middle-class and wealthy? That’s just communist rubbish. If my taxes are going to pay for services, I want access to them. A billionaire family can go to the public library and send their kids to public schools and drive on public roads. Why cut the billionaire out of access to public health care? This bleeding-heart pity-party for the poor is inherently unfair and goes against what this nation stands for (there are some truths that we hold as self-evident, you know). If a government provides services, it should provide services to any citizen.

It’s for these last two reasons that I am astounded that it’s the right wing that’s opposed and the left that’s in favor of single-payer health coverage. That’s probably because the left wing controls the rhetoric and they can frame it in terms of crying and whining about the disadvantaged. It should not be about handouts for those we pity. We don’t build roads or schools or libraries out of pity for those who don’t have books or all-terrain vehicles; it’s because we want an entire society with the tools to make themselves productive and effective, regardless of the circumstances of birth.

Someone who believes in free markets and a classless society can fall into two camps: one who thinks government should do nothing, no schools or roads or fire departments, because government can do nothing right anyway; or one who thinks that government should do some things to elevate the entire citizenry. Someone who says that we should «only help the poor,» should stop calling himself a conservative. That’s not what that person is. That person is someone who lacks the integrity or moral commitment to the things she claims to espouse.

A call to action

In this time we live in, a battle is being fought for the soul of the Republican Party. It’s a storm that has been brewing for some time; when the Dixiecrats fled Carter into Reagan’s flock there started a schism that gave irrational theocrats sway over the GOP. Resistance to Bush the Younger’s presidency gave some voice back to the rational and even sometimes progressive wing of the Party. The Tea Party is poised to cause yet deeper rifts within what we call the right wing.

Because of these rifts, both new and old, the Republican Party is poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of the apparent recent victory over the Democrats. Ultimately, Republicans are still playing the Democrats’ game. No amount of «compassionate conservative» rhetoric will keep the Democrats from very effectively tarring the Republicans as meanies. The Democrats have the moral high ground only because Republicans are afraid to reframe the conversation. America is a deeply moral country and you can’t counter accusations of being uncharitable with a lesson in economics.

The current very divided Republican party will not survive or thrive off of backlash against the Democrats. The Republican party will not survive as the party of «do nothing.» Conservatism in the common definition of the word is not the solution to our problems. The Republicans may have gained some ground by claiming that the Democrats have the wrong answers, but without some answers of our own, the Republican Party won’t fulfill America’s needs.

The Obama campaign was absolutely right that America needs change and needs hope. It isn’t enough to mock the voters who believe in hope and change; the Republican Party, if it is to survive at all, needs to deliver the change that the Obama administration promised.

It may sound as though I’m suggesting compromise with socialism, but look at what’s happening already. The Democratic party has used emotional blackmail to force a much more real and meaningful compromise with socialism than what I’m proposing. Earl Warren famously said that most people consider the things that government does for them to be social progress, and those things which government does for others to be socialism. We’re not going to dismantle the government and keep it from doing anything. Even if we could, is that really what we want?

Let’s stop making the conversation about more versus less government and framing ourselves in the role of the miser, and start making the conversation about government doing things that are fair, effective, efficient, and in service to all Americans. Let’s encourage state and local governments to actually do some of the things we think the Federal Government shouldn’t be doing. Let’s have responsible social progress instead of inaction. Let’s stop being the party of naysayers and become the party with a better plan.